That is, divine intervention in some way, I would say

Now if you want to study the canon

Study the councils where they were declared canonical!

Well, I'll have to see what the more educated dudes have to say about that passage in Luke. GG

It doesn't apply only to Enoch, but to many books where some say "this is part of the canon" or "this is not". I follow the catholic canon.

Now anyone can dismiss the luke parable with a quick excuse

But it is up to you to determine if the excuses are consistent

And sound

It helps when you read the earliest christians and they all agree on something

Thought you guys might like this:

St Maximus the Confessor

RE: gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia

*RE: psychosis

fixed

@-EE- BaltBerg Its called the energy essence distinction

@Mozalbete ⳩ Also, he's a saintt in the Catholic church as well. Would watch your mouth, blasphamiing papist.

Dude, I just mentioned how "gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia" are just psychosis

In relation to St. Maximus the Confessor by the looks of it

??

He said "RE: gender identity disorder/body dysmorphia"

And I simplified it

@Deleted User Dude, the Book of Enoch is non-canonical. It's never been in the Bible, Catholic or otherwise. It's no more infallible than the Gospel of Mary.

Yes it has actually

The Ethiopian miaphysites use it in their Bible

The BoE isn't Canonical, but everyone should read it as it's interesting.

Also @Byzas enoch

>Ethiopians

I was just pointing out that a church claiming to be Christian somewhere has the book in the canon

The book was historically used by orthodox Christians at some point too but it got thrown out because people like St Augustine didn't like it

@Deleted User gotta be honest the stuff you're saying isn't even correct for Calvinism

"everybody is given grace"

What then is limited atonement? How about double-predestination?

And if grace is irresistible and everyone is given grace, then you'd have to be a universalist (IE *everyone* in the world is saved)

This presents obvious issues

I suggest you read up on the Synod of Dort, Calvin's institutes, and the writings of Beza.

That being said, Calvinism is dumb. Go read the Second Council of Orange. The closest thing you'll find to Calvinist soteriology is Augustine, but that falls apart too when you realize that Augustine believes in resistable grace (different from prevenient grace) and believes in Perseverance of the Elect (different from perseverance of the saints)

Augustine has something much closer to Lutheran soteriology with the added Double Predestination, which was then condemned at Orange II.

Hence why Lutherans reject the doctrine.

Eternal reprobation makes God the author of evil. And is not a loving God.

St Augustine had an axiom “if a man stands it’s by the will of God, if he falls it’s by his own will”

Which is exactly what Lutherans believe. Salvation is the monergistic act of God, but if we are condemned, it is our own doing. This is one of the primary principles that separates Lutherans from our Presbyterian brethren.

@Quarantine_Zone You do know that the Presbyterians (i.e. followers of the Westminster Standards) are the inferiors in the 'Reformed' tradition? They don't understand that the Continental Reformed tradition (mainly the Three Forms of Unity and the Helvetic Confessions) have an agreeable but different mindset all together.
An interesting thing happens with Lutheranism in a couple of confessions (especially the Consensus of Zurich and the Tetrapolitan Confession), that they where very anti-lutheranism in nature, mostly in the disagreement about Memorialism (specific Zwinglian ideal) and the Sacramental Union most Lutherans believed. Only later the 'threat' of Amyraldism was dealt with in the Helvetic Consensus of 1675. Amyraldism has made a distinct mark on a lot of congregationalists in the Americas and in turn changed Reformed tradition at least a bit over there.